to think capping benefits at 2 children is a good idea

[moogstera1]

Child-related benefits may be 'capped' at two children"
*Iain Duncan Smith said the current system, where families get more benefits the more children they have, was among changes being considered.

Families on benefits were often "freed from" the decision of whether they could afford more children, Mr Duncan Smith said, and must "cut their cloth".*

yes yes, before I get jumped on, if both your arms fall off and a previously hard working wage earner is jobless, there should be ( and I imagine would be)a safety net for those who then need benefits and have more than 2 chidren; but, in principle, I agree that working families seem to have to make much more difficult decisions regarding how many children they have than long term non working do, and it's mostly about finance.
The suggestion is that this would not be happening till 2015 and then only to new claimants so no comments about which children should be sacrificed, please.
The idea seems to be to only factor in 2 children wrt tax credits, child benefit

I think it's a stupid idea from a party whose ancestors brought up the Poor Laws and are stuck in about 1850.

YANBU. At.all.

Finally we have a politician prepared to say, by all means have 10 kids but the rest of the tax paying community can only fund 2. If you want more, please do. But you'll have to support them out of your own pocket. Just like the rest of 'em.

Imagine the state we'd be in if all the middle classes started having all these kids? Most couldn't afford to do so and pay child care so guess what? On to state benefit they go.

I personally think it should be a slightly phased approach I.e after August 2013, financial benefit will only be given to the 1st 2 children. Not applicable to those born before this date. Therefore all the scroungers (well, it's not the kiddies' fault their parents are lowlife), partially working and fully working families who rely on this benefit will be untouched. It will quite nicely stop all those who are planning their third or more to rely on the hard slog of others to pay for them to have child after child. As someone who would rather not work but does, full time and hard, I am bloody delighted!

Baby, why do you work full time?

Seems sensible, although lots of things to consider:

• multiple births
• children by different partners
• whether for children already born
• what to do when people have 6-7 children and end up in poverty

However there is something really wrong with the current system where only the very rich or very poor can "afford" big families.

I have heard stories from my cleaner about her DD's friends who get pregnant as they can't be bothered to get a job, and this does not sound fair to me.

Horrific thread, with such a lack of care for children. Oh the rich can have what children they want; only the poor should be penalised (along with all the appalling stigma now being levelled at these already vulnerable people).

So many people basically want to bring back conditions of poverty for children who have no say in the matter.

We are not far from there being people here applauding the idea of workshouses for the undeserving, or God forbid, sterilisation. What about contraceptive accidents and Catholics who don't believe in contraception? What about those whose circumstances change?

My grandfather lived in poverty, pre-welfare state - in the 20's he was reduced to eating grass, like many people in the community where he lived. That is the route this kind of policy would heading down - families living in starvation situations or being bullied by the state into some kind of social control program.

This political party have not a scintilla of humanity in them, if this is what they recommend.

Middle class people don't have more tahn two kids generally as they are more educated and would rather get on with their careers than remain permanently sprogged up. Having said that that it is a growing trend for middle class families to have three or more because they can. It makes me feel like children are a bit of a status symbol for some; as long as they are nice middle class children of course.

what will be the saving doing this? a billion. isn't that what tesco's make every minute or something?

radical thought here, but why not make the people who can afford it pay
you know, like the bankers and massive corporations.

these cuts will only harm the most vulnerable members of our society - children.

i honestly can't understand why people can't see that.

toptramp I went to school with a lot of upper middle class offspring,they were all from 3+ children families. So it is bollocks silly to say that educated people don't have larger families.

I have a friend married to her DH who went to Eton, they have four children. The upper middles have always had large families. It is the lower aspirationals who have smaller families. They can only shin up the pole if both work, that has been the case for 30 plus years.

Also toptramp careers aren't the be all and end all for most people. Having the ability to provide for their children is.

This thread is just so depressing. I really don't think that everyone can be happy with the solution. There has always been feckless breeders. They used to live in slums pre-WWII and the children suffered terribly. I don't think returning to that is the answer.

Minitheminx you're dead on with that observation. Agree completely.

why not make ALL work pay well so that a family can comfortably live on one wage, that will create less surplus labour because their will be opportunities for more families to have at least one working adult.

Oh dear.....that won't work, just imagine the boss making less profit.

Thankfully this cannot be brought into effect (it would bankrupt the country if it did) because of the UN conventions around child poverty and the rights of the child.

Lots of laws would have to be overturned to make this cost effective, including the Children's Act.

All that would happen is that poorer families would have their children put onto 'Child In Need' plans which would get them more money than benefits would.

The government would have to ensure that services are available for these families.

Either that or there would be mass protests in area's of high unemployment and rioting.

Immagration and foreign Aid would have to be stopped, also.

there obv, very tired! it's all that work. When you work, you work long hours, when you don't you get defamed.

"They used to live in slums pre-WWII and the children suffered terribly."

That was the general working class and exploited labour, once cannon fodder wasn't needed, in most industrial towns.

This thread makes me feel sick too.

This idea is wrong on so many levels. Most of them have already been mentioned: multiple births, rape, abusive relationships, people losing their jobs, spouses dying, blended families, disabled families, looked after children, accidental pregnancies, father who don't pay childcare.

It is morally wrong, and if so many people can't see that then I despair.

I think this new 2020 euro plan is replacing all other goals on poverty and the goals to reduce child poverty have been dropped from this.

We cannot drop the goals to reduce child poverty unless we opt out of parts of the EU.

This needs explaining to voters, what is being proposed cannot be done.

They are bound by the ruling that says that all those in the EU must have raised the living standards for families and made an improvement in child poverty rates by 2020.

It is tougher than when we had to introduce ECM.

The Children Act will have to have amendments to ensure this.

There will have to be a new Child Poverty Act and Strategy, put through the legal system to ensure that it complies with the EU directive.

I don't know what this rubbish is covering up, but it's like the policies put forward on immigration, they couldn't have done what they said they were thinking off, we would have been fined by the EU.

It was just a vote winner.

Birds no,the working class were poor but did not all live in slums.

I don't see how what you have said negates my statement that the children suffered because there was no support available.

talking about this on question Time now.

birds - so basically what is being suggested is actually illegal?

Some woman on Quesion Time "why do young women who get pregnant when they're single get given all this help when young people who pay tax and work don't". Because obviously,if you're young,female,unmarried (the legal definition of single) and get pregnant,you can't possibly have been working yourself. Lovely attitude lady from slough.